Firedocs Remote Viewing

About six weeks ago or so, I got busy, and dropped out of online RV stuff to focus on what was at hand.

A few weeks later, I wandered back into the TKR Forum, and happened to read a rather old thread that had been kicked back up.

I recalled that I was rather irked for several reasons when posting on the thread, but still, it was hard not to notice…

…what a cranky uptight jerk I sounded like. Even to people I actually really like.

That isn’t who I am when I’m not burned out on something. That’s not who I want to be.

I figured it’s a sign I need to back off and focus on other things in life for awhile, so I’ve been doing that.

***

I have to task the TKR Mission this week. And some other things that are dragging me reluctantly back online for a bit. But I hope to be out of the loop much of Spring.

Of course, I have half a dozen interviews lined up that I’m not doing because I’m offline. That’s a problem, sigh. Haven’t decided what to do about that yet. Might have to try to crunch them into the second half of January and get them over with so I can wander off again.

I’ve a few major projects in process that I’m not doing because I’m offline. Lucky everyone working with me on them is so patient.

Not to mention I’ve a lot of viewer friends I’m not much talking to because I’m offline most the time.

But I trust things will go on just fine without me, thanks in part to TKR’s staff and thanks in part to the proactive enthusiasm of dojo viewers and my friends, in the various online corners where they sometimes lurk.

***

After literally going longer without even *thinking* about Remote Viewing than I have in many eons, I woke up one morning recently with a radical attitude adjustment.

I realized, suddenly, that I don’t know anything about it.

I don’t mean the subject, the protocol, or 47 other aspects we could wax on about. I mean actually DOING IT. Sure, I can do it technically. I could teach a few formal methods, I’ve developed a couple fairly unique approaches myself, and there’s the 2.7 million variants on “just do it” as well.

What I mean is, I think that every thing I think about RV is a belief system.

A filter I’ve been too close to see.

An assumption I’ve been too close to question.

I think the mind automatically tries to backtrack from every observation and experience and come up with a ‘why’.

I suddenly felt that everything I THINK I know about performing remote viewing is, in fact, an albatross to the process of actually doing it.

I had the feeling, all the sudden, that viewing sometimes went well despite me, not because of me.

***

My goal for 2008 with viewing is to start over. To pretend I know zero about the doing-it-part, and just let every session be anything it wants to be, without models and structures.

To be as spontaneous as humanly possible.

To put no judgement on the process for now.

To let it be like an artistic movie: something I don’t have to understand or agree with. Something that is an art form and a mystery and all that matters is how I feel inside and what it means to me. Which can be different every session, every instant.

No labels. No conclusions. No theories!! Just experience. Just letting it happen however it will.

We’ll see what happens.

Just a random thought for the morning. Some background trivia to explain where the thought came from.

Trivia: One of the things that brought up the research into ‘intrinsic target properties’, was based on human senses, and the way they are much more sensitive to change/novelty than to repetition. (Shannon Entropy: A Possible Intrinsic Target Property [pdf] by Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, and Christine L. James. Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 58, pp. 384-401, 1994.)

Trivia: I think we all have realized that ‘changing up’ one’s RV process, whether method or any other element of the process, often seems to have an initial improved-result-impact. Initially this often leads people to be sure that whatever they just changed is THE ANSWER, FINALLY, but after awhile most viewers realize this is a fairly predictable effect is all–and alas, it does wear off.

Trivia: Cue-ing for data within a session is an issue of novelty. Change a word, a phrasing, a perspective in space or time, or even other more unusual ways of focusing, and you create a ‘new cue’ that can often prompt new data. A given cue (whether to self or from other) seems to have a lifespan ranging from once to who-knows how many but not infinite “provoked responses” in data form. Dowsing really can bring home how changing a single word can change response, but even in viewing I think most viewers with a little experience figure out how important novelty in cue-ing is. Some degree of the value of a monitor could be in the sheer ‘novelty’ factor of their cueing based on the live experience, for example.

OK, so humans are more sensitive to change with their body-senses… viewer intuitive response often seems re-set/re-freshed from a change in the prompt/cue… viewer results often seem re-set/re-refreshed from a change in any part of the viewing process. It’s all the same dynamic.

Although this is one reason I always recommend people use as many tasking and feedback forms and sources as possible, I hadn’t really focused on this aspect of it clearly in my head before.

CHANGE. Maybe deliberately planning a constant change after so many sessions, would be useful. Maybe changing out a few basics even of the personal process such as standard self-cue’s and things like that, should be part of that. I’ve come to this idea before several times over the years so I’m wondering why I quit thinking about it whenever that was, or why it seems novel again. (Heh. The advantage of being an airhead. New ideas every day!)

The funny thing is, this dynamic really seems to hold for everything. For weight lifting building muscle, for eating plans and fat loss, as two examples of stuff I also work on regularly, it always seems like there is an initial effect and then it ramps down to a holding pattern of sorts, where the body fights for homeostasis.

Well the psychology fights for homeostasis like crazy. That’s half the psychological challenge with viewing in protocol, is how hard the body/mind fights to regain a ‘known’ footing/belief system. “Change=death to the psychology,” as we’ve all heard. Yet growth only happens when homeostasis is absent, or as the old baseball saying goes, “You can’t steal second with one foot on first.”

Maybe when we plan our own viewer development, when we work out managing our own tasking and method and so on, a deliberately randomized set of changes in our process should be part of that. Maybe at the first sign of a few sessions in a row that don’t go well, change should be implemented.

This makes me think (ok, now I’m just rambling!) of live sports performance. We are least challenged to develop when we only spar with an opponent on things we know, or do planned drills we expect. It’s the sheer novelty of the fight or the game that forces us to adapt and grow. I wonder if literally creating a little utility that lets a viewer put in a variety of options for every component of their viewing (tasking or target source, a dozen diff points in their method-process, various cue-ing they do in-session, etc.) and having it randomized would actually be useful. So like, if you sat down to do an ‘exercise’, on the spot you’d have a custom, fairly unpredictable combination of elements. Each one would be familiar, so it wouldn’t be like losing the consistency of doing-what-you-know, but the combination of them would be random, so it might be more like the novelty-of-the-live-event. Ya think? OK, rambling off, need to get back to work here.

PJ

The CIA released ~5% of the documentation from the collected projects now called “Star Gate”. Thousands and thousands of files with a mind-crunching disaster of mis/cross-numbering, it’s a miracle to find anything. Then Tamra Temple spent about a zillion hours laboriously going through every single document, putting them in a proper index, making notes on the document content, etc.

The spreadsheet index she created, you can search or sort, color for your own reference, change the notes for your own custom reference, and more. It’s a fabulous option for anybody interested in this history!

You can get the CD’s individually or the entire set. The linked page has more info and ordering. Check it out! http://stargate-interactive.com/

As if some of the past speaking guests weren’t frightening enough.

The IRVA has now formally agreed that Ed Dames will speak at this year’s conference.

Not that they’ve ever been a true bastion of representing RV’s best interests anyway all things considered — a good potential, not yet realized — but this utterly astounded me.

I have to go throw up now.

PJ

I forgot to mention that I’m tasking the TKR Mission this week.
Go to TKR at the Dojo Psi, Viewer Studios, Missions, Go View.
Or, when you first login, there’s a link at the top of the chatmat on the right.

Feedback is Monday 9/3 at 7pm.

I sometimes think it’s the world’s greatest irony that some of the most ‘impactive’ experiences in viewing are the targets with no feedback.

(Which reminds me I’ve sometimes wondered if the lack of a decent time window on some taskings actually makes the viewing experience potentially more intense because there is inherently ‘more information’ in the ‘target’.)

Last week TKR’s Mission was tasked by Marv, and it was “the lakes on Titan”, or something like that. I don’t know why, but the stuff on other planets is just so damned interesting. Although I’ve had some sessions that sucked on planets, I’ve also had some interesting things, from one years ago on Titan (see that link above), to one on Ganymede I blogged about here (that was more after-session interest), and in the past a couple interesting sessions on Saturn.

Of all the missions TKR has done, some of my faves are their planet-related missions. Like there was “Something on Mars” that I tasked in the early days (years ago), the “Mars Home Plate” that Benton tasked over a year ago, and there are some earth-bound tasks that are directly about anomalies that are pretty fascinating, from The Dropa Enigma to The Metal Ball Mystery, both of which sort of defy ‘technology we have/had available, far as we know’ and make one wonder about the larger universe around us.

I also sometimes wonder, since I tend to grant “some degree of awareness” to everything, and “identity” to many things most people wouldn’t, if planets themselves may have a pretty rocking-sized sentience that might make ours look pretty puny by comparison. Ever since my session with Ganymede I’ve been wondering that.

Not just about planets, but about targets on a larger scale. How much of what we perceive is about what the target chooses to share with us?